It’s an article of faith in many left-leaning circles that the purpose of invading Iraq was to establish permanent military bases there. Part of this theory is premised on what we did once we arrived. By abolishing the Iraqi military and engaging in a de-Ba’athification program, we assured that there could be no short-term domestic substitute for our leadership. In effect, the Iraqis had a choice between U.S. occupation and absolute anarchy.
It’s a fine theory, but it is probably not true. An important piece of evidence that it is not true is detailed in this week’s Time magazine. I’ll quote it at length since the context is important It comes from a new book written by General Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq in 2003-2004.
In 2005, Marine General Peter Pace, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called [Sanchez] to say his career was over and he wouldn’t get the promotion to a full general — four stars — that Sanchez says he was promised. Six months later, at Rumsfeld’s request, he showed up at the Pentagon for a meeting with the defense secretary shortly before retiring. In this exclusive excerpt, Sanchez details what happened next:
First, Rumsfeld offered Sanchez some cushy assignments to offset the sting of not getting his fourth star. Then…
Secretary Rumsfeld then pulled out a two-page memo and handed it to me. “I wrote this after a promotion interview about two weeks ago,” he explained. “The officer told me that one of the biggest mistakes we made after the war was to allow CENTCOM and CFLCC to leave the Iraq theater immediately after the fighting stopped — and that left you and V Corps with the entire mission.”
“Yes, that’s right,” I said.
“Well, how could we have done that?” he said in an agitated, but adamant, tone. “I knew nothing about it. Now, I’d like you to read this memo and give me any corrections.”
In the memo, Rumsfeld stated that one of the biggest strategic mistakes of the war was ordering the major redeployment of forces and allowing the departure of the CENTCOM and CFLCC staffs in May�June 2003.
“This left General Sanchez in charge of operations in Iraq with a staff that had been focused at the operational and tactical level, but was not trained to operate at the strategic/operational level.” He went on to write that neither he nor anyone higher in the Administration knew these orders had been issued, and that he was dumbfounded when he learned that Gen. McKiernan was out of the country and in Kuwait, and that the forces would be drawn down to a level of about 30,000 by September. “I did not know that Sanchez was in charge,” he wrote.
So, orders were given, initially, to draw down troops to 30,000 by September, but no civilian will own up to making that decision or issuing that order.
I stopped reading after I read that last statement, because I knew it was total BS. After a deep breath, I said, “Well, Mr. Secretary, the problem as you’ve stated it is generally accurate, but your memo does not accurately capture the magnitude of the problem. Furthermore, I just can’t believe you didn’t know that Franks’s and McKiernan’s staffs had pulled out and that the orders had been issued to redeploy the forces.”
At that point, Rumsfeld became very excited, jumped out of his seat, and sat down in the chair next to me so that he could look at the memo with me. “Now just what is it in this memorandum that you don’t agree with?” he said, almost shouting.
“Mr. Secretary, when V Corps ramped up for the war, our entire focus was at the tactical level. The staff had neither the experience nor training to operate at the strategic level, much less as a joint/combined headquarters. All of CFLCC’s generals, whom we called the Dream Team, left the country in a mass exodus. The transfer of authority was totally inadequate, because CENTCOM’s focus was only on departing the theater and handing off the mission. There was no focus on postconflict operations. None! In their minds, the war was over and they were leaving. Everybody was executing these orders, and the services knew all about it.”
Rather than focus on the strategic blunder here, I want to focus on what it means for the psychology of the war planners.
Starting to get a little worked up, I paused a moment, and then looked Rumsfeld straight in the eye. “Sir, I cannot believe that you didn’t know I was being left in charge in Iraq.”
“No! No!” he replied. “I was never told that the plan was for V Corps to assume the entire mission. I have to issue orders and approve force deployments into the theater, and they moved all these troops around without any orders or notification from me.”
“Sir, I don’t … “
“Why didn’t you tell anyone about this?” he asked, interrupting me in an angry tone.
“Mr. Secretary, all of the senior leadership in the Pentagon knew what was happening. Franks issued the orders and McKiernan was executing them.”
Sanchez goes on the explain that his interpretation of this meeting was that he was being bribed with job offers in an attempt to get him to agree that Rumsfeld had no knowledge that he was being left in charge of the occupation of Iraq. But, again, while that is interesting, the important point is that it appears that there was no plan to stick around in Iraq. The plan was to get the hell out.
The only thing I can think of that explains this is that the lunatics around Cheney and Rumsfeld seriously believed that they could just install Ahmed Chalabi as a new strongman and that he would be able to maintain order. But once they arrived in Iraq they quickly realized that that would be impossible and that Ayatollah Sistani (who they had probably never heard of before) was the most important man in Iraq. They couldn’t do anything without his approval, and that is when things began to unravel in a hurry.
This theory can explain a lot of things, like why General Franks did so little Phase IV (occupation) planning and why the State Department’s plan was tossed aside, and (potentially) why the decisions were made to disband the military and engage in de-Ba’athification.
But, in any case, it doesn’t look like the plan was initially to have a long-term occupation of Iraq.
I have long said that it is easier to think this administration evil than incompetent, because if they are evil we can disagree with them – vehemently – but ultimately they will do their best to keep us safe, the primary responsibility of governments. However, if they are truly incompetent then we have no reason to sleep soundly at night – they can’t protect us from anything.
Unfortunately, we seem to have the worst of both worlds – they’re evil and incompetent. Kinda makes Herbert “We don’t need no stinkin’ handouts” Hoover look like a president par excellence…
I’ll also note that, while I tend not to take them at all seriously, neo-cons like Perle, Feith, and Wolfowitz all act like their intent was not to occupy Iraq. Maybe they aren’t lying.
attributed to w.c. fields. [Said when caught reading the Bible.]
there’s a reckoning coming, and they’re all doing their best to distance themselves from whatever criminal charges, ala Nuremberg, that may be forthcoming after jan 2009.
karma’s a bitch, and it may grind slowly, but it grinds finely.
Iraq, not a grilled cheese sandwich, but a grinder.
heh
you want that with onions?
If they are evil, we have no reason to suppose they seek to protect us, especially given that their own power increases directly to the extent we feel under threat. And W’s dallying on vacation for days while New Orleans drowned provides good empirical support for the position that protecting us is not among their goals.
Setting aside the issue of the supposed necessity of invading Iraq by the administration, I can’t see how anyone would be surprised at how little the cheerleader cabal actually cared about what would happen in its aftermath. They were so utterly deluded about the invasion’s immediate effects on Iraq, how its people would react — that they could scarcely be bothered to consider what they would need to stick in the vacuum to keep the thing propped up. They chose to consider only the ideal, best-case scenario as a result. Does Sanchez see this book as absolution, or ultimately take whatever blame he deserves? I’d kind of like to know, but I ain’t buying the thing.
A big part of me will never forgive this country for allowing such a monstrous, arrogant, incompetent mistake like this war to occur. The fallout will harm this country for decades to come, and on so many levels. Makes me sick.
BooMan, thanks for this. I am so ticked off right now… Tony Zinni‘s The Calling fits in so many ways here.
“a marvelous case study in… collective self-deception. The plot spoilers were there all the time. “Everybody” was so sure, and so wrong.” (lots of links/analysis of Clinton & the AUMF).
Thinking About Iraq (II) – New York Times
I think they were so utterly self-deluded, so invested in their own lies, that they really believed the first scenario was self-fulfilling. They really thought that if they just toppled Saddam and said “stable Democratic Iraq” enough times, everything would be roses. When they opened the box and the second scenario flew out, they were totally unprepared physically and mentally. And rather than adjust their strategy to reality, they set about snuffing anyone with an alternate viewpoint. They really thought they could make reality conform to their propaganda if they just clapped loud enough and muzzled everybody else.
Good quote. I think they were so blinded by their Clean Break Plan, that they believed that Iraq would be an Arab Germany. They believed that they could install Chalabi under the veneer of Democracy and establish a few bases and a modest military presence “to assure a smooth transition.” They were expecting that Chalabi, as an America-friendly President/Strongman, would give favorable terms to American oil companies. (Of course, Chalabi had been very good at telling them what they wanted to hear, even if it wasn’t based in reality — which became really clear after the Judith Miller embedded reports.)
.
In a scathing analysis, a former senior Pentagon official has called the war in Iraq “a major debacle” that created an incubator for terrorism and emboldened Iran.
“Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle,” Joseph Collins wrote in “Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and its Aftermath.” [pdf file]
Published by the National Defense University, Collins’ paper is striking in that it comes from one whose position from 2001 to 2004 put him near the center of decision making that led to the war. He was deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations when the United States invaded Iraq, only to find itself mired in the now five year old struggle to pacify the country.
Collins said the price of the war has been damage to US standing in the world, strains on the US military, and a negative impact on the war on terror, “which must now bow to the priority of Iraq when it comes to manpower, materiel, and the attention of decisionmakers.”
“Compounding all these problems, our efforts there were designed to enhance US national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East,” he wrote.
As have other analysts, Collins pins the failure in Iraq on a lack of post war planning and the refusal of overconfident policy makers to commit enough troops to pacify Iraq after the invasion.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."One of the commies in my peace group was SO absolutely certain that everything in Iraq was proceeding according to a thoroughly-thought-through and carefully-drafted plan that she never even considered that there was anything that happened in Iraq that surprised Rumsfeld, Cheney or any of the other neocons.
I dunno, it’s hard to believe that the utter and complete destruction of central Baghdad (Delegated and outsourced to Iraqi looters) and it’s government offices and cultural treasures was a mistake.
It should have been obvious to folks in charge that chaos would erupt once the city was taken and that the old regime’s authority didn’t exist anymore.
And there are the theories that “If Iraq is sufficiently ‘softened up’ by all the destruction, then occupation will be easier.”
See especially Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine.
I dunno. We’ll have to get the members of the Bush Administration in front of an international court like the Hague and get them in chains and under oath to have even a hope of getting at the final truth.
btw, i always thought it wasn’t a bright idea invading a city with a horoscope. especially since both Baghdad & USA Chart’s have Sagittarius Rising (but hey, it’s only astrology!). Baghdad’s Ascendant is Sagittarius 6° (conjunct Jupiter) & USA’s Ascendant is Sagittarius 13°12′:
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
LOL. you could’ve done the jedi mind trick thingy & made it go away BooMan. but hey, since it’s astrology saturday!
Baghdad’s chart for 762 has Jupiter in Sagittarius. The ascendant represents the rising sign in the East (Aries, Taurus, Gemini &c) at the moment of birth — what is externally projected. Jupiter represents Expansion (whereas Saturn = Contraction). Sagittarius is open-minded, free loving & its traditional house (9th) represents change and breaking routine. Jupiter rules Sagittarius. This gives a good idea of the constellation of forces present at Baghdad’s (as well as the USA’s) founding:
Al-Mansur, who established Baghdad, also founded the House of Wisdom. The War on Terror has been described as a “clash of civilizations”. I think of it as the clash of the Sagittarii.
Astrology is a very complicated study. It was a required university subject in Europe until the Enlightenment/Reformation. EVERYONE in Europe knew about and how to understand some astrology. It’s iconography exists all over European buildings and art for centuries. The rationalists and cartesians gave the Church further reason to prosecute non-Christian elements left in Europe, which was highly “pagan” for many centuries, and the Church only succeeded in completely destroying “pagan” culture after the Inquisition and Reformation. The fight for the religious minds and hearts of Europe occupied the Catholic Church for over a thousand years. Even though astrology was sanctioned by the Church as an appeasement to the masses for many centuries, and taught in their universities, it became condemned and unacceptable. Too much “pagan” culture had been destroyed, and astrology was then condemned.
Fortunately, enough secularists and such preserved astrological tradition that it’s resurgence in the 19th Century and the 20th’s secularization of learning, has allowed it to survive.
Not so European herbology, which was in the hands of women who were not only oppressed, but not allowed to read and write or publish. The tremendous history and use of herbal medicine in Europe died off with the industrial revolution with the loss of the woman healer. Today, European herbology has been resurrected to some small degree, but most of it’s wisdom has been lost to sexism and repression of women. Somehow, astrology survived more fully because men had the privilege to education, reading, writing and publishing. What’s left of that lost tradition is a very deep and thorough skepticism of the use and value of herbal medicine in illness and healing.
Today, European herbology has been resurrected to some small degree, but most of it’s wisdom has been lost to sexism and repression of women.
You should come to Romania some time, there’s a herbal shop on every corner with plenty of inherited knowledge. Of course back during the Malleus Malificarum days in WESTERN Europe, those “savage” Muslims were running the show in this neck of the woods and thus a lot of local culture, knowledge and tradition got preserved.
Pax
one of my long-standing favorite observations from the ever-on-the-mark juan cole:
Can anyone think of a single country that the US invaded after World War II in which it does not still maintain “enduring” military bases?
The only example I can think of is Grenada (hardly of strategic interest), which doesn’t have any US bases, as far as I know.
Not thinking that a prolonged occupation of Iraq would be necessary does not in any way imply that the establishment of enduring bases was not intended.
I don’t follow your logic here, Boo. “Establishing permanent military bases” and “long-term occupation” are not the same thing, and the difference is crucial. The US has had maintained military bases (well, permanent for nearly 60 yrs) all over Europe and Asia, but does not “occupy” any of these countries. (Germany and Japan were occupied for only a few years after the war).
I think the evidence indicates the plan was for permanent military bases in Iraq, especially when you consider that Iraq was not an end in itself, but a foothold in the region. The rest of your point sounds right. Thinking that a friendly leader like Chalabi would easily control the country, they assumed they would not need for an occupation force in order to get the bases built and running.
We got kicked out of Saudi Arabia by the Wahabbists, and needed a place to park our army. It’s that simple.
Well just the embassy compound is a permanent base. Who would build such a think if they weren’t planning to stay? I guess I’m supposed to say ‘endure’.
I thought Rumsfeld stood all day at his podium doing his work, in that 14 hour non-stress positions.
The neocons’ utter incompetence re Iraq is difficult to grasp. I mean they are oblivious of this nation’s recent history, say since 1920; they appear to know nothing of the ethnic composition of the country, neither do they realize that Chalabi is a rank charlatan, and was once wanted in Jordan for bank fraud. They made so many basic mistakes in the early days of the conquest that one wonders if they had some secret plan to completely dismantle Iraq so that it could no longer function as an integral state.
I don’t know whom to compare them with they are so bad. George III? It’s like the inmates of some mental institution were elected to public office and conducted business as you would expect; blunder after blunder after blunder.
The costs are what you would expect; tremendous loss of life, gargantuan property damage, unbelievable waste of national treasure, deep damage to the national psyche and value system. One would think with such a record of sheer failure that the neocons would disappear and never be seen again. Yet, they run for reelection in the campaign of John McCain. My feeling is that the electorate will dismiss them and their unique brand of stupidity with a massive vote of rejection come November.
It’s about time.
I have read a lot about the Neocons, where they came from, what they want, etc., and still I find it almost impossible to grasp the depths of their lack of intelligence. But let’s try: (a) they talk and listen only to each other, (b) intellectually they are a direct descent from the hard-line Cold War ideology, trying to apply a deeply entrenched way of thinking that has always worked for the arms industry, to utterly different and inapplicable conditions of the post-Soviet world, (c) they think in abstractions and are in love with their ideas; no amount of proof to the contarary has any effect (Fukiyama is a rare exception); (d) they believe chaos is a positive force — only good can come from it (e) frankly, it works for them, they have done very well in their careers and many have made tons of money by literally investing in their policies, they are richly rewarded by the powers that be, (f) they are extremely arrogant; look down on those who fail to comprehend their brilliance (g) they believe in deception as a positive force, they are assertively NOT reality-based, regarding that as a hindrance because history will conform to their beliefs as they are making history through their beliefs.
Any objective person realizes the neocons are in deep denial and self-deception.. Is it not truly amazing the degree to which human beings can educate themselves to be stupid, when they follow false principles and fictional facts, and live in a bubble?
Planning my ass. Bush had the wrong person as Sec. of State – Powell should have been Sec. of Defense – something he knew more about than anyone. Rumsfeld should have been having tea with his buddy Cheney on some mountain top in Wyoming. Both of them should have been reliving how Nixon got screwed instead of having any influence in government. Instead the NASCAR President was slinging his shit everywhere and we the citizens we’re convinced that we had a right to do anything to anybody because what had happened while our government slept on 9/11.